Think Forward EP 125: Transformative Foresight with Dr. John Sweeney

Welcome to Episode 125 of the Think Forward Show! 

This episode features a conversation with Dr. John Sweeney, who discusses the evolution of futures studies and the importance of transformative foresight. The episode delves into using play and culture in futures work, advocating for broader futures literacy and anticipatory governance while stressing the ethical responsibilities of futurists in shaping inclusive narratives for diverse communities.  

In this episode we explore:

• John's journey into the field of futures studies  
• The distinction between strategic foresight and transformative foresight  
• Importance of interdisciplinary approaches to futures thinking  
• The role of gaming in reshaping futures dialogues  
• The need for futures literacy in education and society  
• Anticipatory governance as a pathway for adaptive policies  
• Ethical considerations in futures work and inclusive practices  
• Closing thoughts on shaping futures pluralism

Our conversation with Dr. Sweeney also ventures into the ethical dimensions of future thinking, probing the balance between imaginative foresight and actionable strategies for organizations and governments. Through the lens of ethical imagination, we consider the power and responsibility of futurists in shaping long-term visions while fostering inclusive and culturally rooted methodologies. 

Order your copy of SuperShifts: www.bit.ly/supershifts

Order your copy of SuperShifts: www.bit.ly/supershifts

🎧 Listen Now On:

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/think-forward-conversations-with-futurists-innovators-and-big-thinkers/id1736144515

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0IOn8PZCMMC04uixlATqoO

Web: https://thinkforward.buzzsprout.com/

Thank you for joining me on this ongoing journey into the future. Until next time, stay curious, and always think forward.

Chapters

• 0:31 Transformative Futures With Dr John Sweeney
• 15:04 The Evolution of Future Studies
• 22:04 Emerging Roles in Foresight
• 26:47 Emerging Leadership Roles in Tech
• 31:19 Transformative Futures vs. Strategic Foresight
• 46:58 Cultural Approaches to Future Thinking
• 53:26 Designing New Governance Systems for Anticipation
• 1:00:28 Rethinking Governance Through Foresight Games
• 1:10:05 Ethics and Inclusive Future Visions
• 1:20:07 The Ethics of Future Thinking

Transcript

Narrator: 0:31

Welcome to the Think Forward podcast, where we speak with futurists, innovators and big thinkers. Come along with your host, steve Fisher, and explore the future together.

Steve: 0:41

Welcome, friends and fellow big thinkers to another exciting episode of Think Forward, where we explore the ever-expanding horizons of the future. Today's guest embodies the fascinating intersection of ancient wisdom and futures thinking. Imagine starting your career studying religious traditions, only to discover one of the world's leading futures programs is just down the hall in Hawaii. That serendipitous moment launched our guest on an extraordinary journey across 50 countries, from the UN's halls to humanitarians' front lines.

Steve: 1:14

He's revolutionizing how we think about and plan for the future through transformative foresight approaches that blend gaming, participatory methods and cultural insights. As the UNESCO Chair and former Global Futures and Foresight Coordinator for the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, he's made futures thinking more accessible and impactful worldwide. Whether designing immersive games to explore possible futures or helping humanitarian organizations prepare for tomorrow's challenges, he's passionate about ensuring all voices are heard in conversations about tomorrow. From a seaside home in Turkey, he works globally to help organizations and communities shape the futures they want. Today we'll explore whether futures work is evolving into a full-time role or remaining a skill set, how gaming can unlock new ways of thinking and why traditional strategic foresight just isn't enough anymore. Welcome to Episode 125, transformative Futures with Dr John Sweeney.

John: 2:18

John, welcome to the show.

Steve: 2:22

Hi, welcome. Thanks so much for having me. Great to be here. You know, for disclosure, I took a class that John taught on design futures and it was absolutely excellent and I think we're going to, we're going to dive in for everybody listening. But you know many in the futures community, uh, know you through, especially UNESCO work. But can you tell us a bit about yourself? Let's talk about you. What sparked you? What sparked your interest in futures, like in your journey?

John: 2:52

Wow, okay, yeah, we'll dive right in. Let's dive right in. $4,000 question yeah, I mean, I always like to say that I guess professionally I'm quite promiscuous. Right, I've gone through many different kind of like phases or stages and identities, and so I guess that speaks in many ways to kind of my, my approach in general. Um, I will say that like actually I always say like I won the lottery, like I happen to be doing a master's degree in religious studies at the University of Hawaii and randomly found out that one of the world leaders and one of the founders of the field of future studies was running, you know, one of the world's top graduate programs, one of the few places you could actually do graduate level study in this stuff, just like down the hall, right Just around campus. And so I discovered this actually through a personal contact. She was doing a master's degree in alternative futures in the department of political science. I said that was interesting.

John: 3:48

I gave up this whole comparative philosophy PhD plan that I had, you know, kicked a Japanese language to the curb. I met Jim Dator and after talking to him for I don't know 90 minutes, it felt like 30 years. It was the only PhD program I applied for. I was fortunate enough to get in Um right when I came to Hawaii. Was was actually when both um, jake Dunnigan and Stuart Candy were just kind of leaving, so I had like this insane attention from Jim Dator and I had all the hallways filled with all of Jake and Stuart's work and I was. I was just like you know, I was like Willy Wonka, I was just like in the factory, like Whoa, like it was this surreal, amazing nurturing, like I always I always feel like it was like a PhD Montessori, like it was just go off and do an experiment and learn and it was just the most generative and supportive and dynamic space that one could possibly imagine.

Steve: 4:42

Lots unpacked there. First, obviously, choosing to go to school in Hawaii. Not a hard place to be.

John: 4:50

Hey, pretty yeah. So look, I mean, of all the life choices I've made, that's got to be in the top five, Like I would say hands down, like going to Hawaii, of course, look, you give up drinking orange juice because you can't afford it as a graduate student's too expensive, but like everything's imported there, so yeah, so the downside, of course, the downside of Hawaii is the islands actually only have an eight day supply of food If that container ship stops coming, even though it has a year round growing season.

John: 5:19

I mean, Hawaii is a land of contradictions. Of course, it's an occupied space. Native Hawaiians, of course, are still struggling to, you know, recover the kingdom and it's a really tenuous situation in many ways. But Hawaii is a unique and beautiful place and it has something really special and actually futures is part of that story.

Steve: 5:40

I remember there was a project on like the future of Hawaii. It was like 2050, I think that there was like speculative futures. Were you involved in that at all, or is that before your time? So?

John: 5:53

Jake and Stuart and, of course, headed by Jim Dator, did the Hawaii 2050, which happened in 2005. And what was actually quite interesting for me was all of the artwork and all of the stuff from that project were still in office. So I literally walked into the Hawaii Research Center for Future Studies thinking that design futures, experiential futures, was completely normal. And then, six years later, in 2011, I was part of a group that did Hawaii 2060. And we did experiential futures in the Waikiki Marriott, we did LARPing and all this stuff, artifacts. So I literally from a very early stage and that was that was two years after I started the PhD program had this experience. So those were connected. We were meant to build off of the 2050 project and that that was kind of that early connection with the kind of design, experiential stuff.

Steve: 6:48

Yeah, and for those listening, jake Dunn again, and Stuart Candy are pioneers in this field of and I guess they could kind of coin the term of I mean experiential futures. But you know, I would just design futures, speculative designs, it kind of. They're one of those kind of original group, along with like Dunn and Rabie and others. But you know, their work is fantastic, but it's interesting to hear you kind of building upon that, I think. I think that's that speaks to the field itself, is that we build upon. It's like standing on the shoulders of the giants, like you have to build upon. There's no bad methods or no, but it's like things maybe have their time, have their application and maybe it's time, which is, you know, your work, which we'll touch on in a, in a minute, with regards to transformative foresight, is probably one of those, an excellent example of that. But you also like God, you know you said religious studies. What were you? What are you a? Are you a theologian? Are you a pastor? Are you like a mom? Like what?

Steve: 7:51

no, just where did that come from?

John: 7:54

So it's. It's it's not in any way related to, you know, my, my, uh, spirituality or practice. I mean, I grew up Catholic right, which is a great way to be non-religious, I suppose, Um, but I always had this interest from a very young age. I guess it was through figures like Thomas Merton, like through kind of like you know, global spirituality, and I became really interested in, like East Asian Buddhism when I was, when I was younger, and actually it was one professor. There was a faculty member at Tennessee State University, which is actually now one of the larger state universities in Georgia. I did my bachelor's degree there and I was three classes away from a degree in communications and I had existential crisis. I gave it up.

John: 8:33

I took two classes intro to philosophy and world religions and they were taught by the same faculty member, Dr David Jones, and I was like, look, I put my entire life and future in this guy's hands. Turns out he got his PhD from the philosophy department in Hawaii. He was an unbelievable and giving mentor and that led me down this other path. So I changed my degree, stayed in school for another two more years, a history of ideas and philosophy and his message was go to Hawaii, Actually, of his graduate students. I went to Hawaii and did a degree, and that's why I was going to do philosophy and then said, all right, I actually want to break, I want to dive into religion a little bit further, and that religion program is unique. It's one of the few programs in the US certainly globally where you can really focus in Asian religions. That's actually the focus of the program. Of course they have, like you know, native Hawaiian Pacific traditions as well. So I went there thinking I would do, let me ground myself in East Asian religion, Let me learn language.

Steve: 9:28

First it was Chinese and then I switched to Japanese and then I was like all right, I'll go on and do my PhD in philosophy just across the hall and then again discovered futures and changed my life.

John: 9:43

Are you a polyglot? You got lots of languages? Uh, so I will say, unfortunately I'm. I'm quite American in the sense. I'm very poor in languages.

John: 9:47

I can say thank you in lots of languages, uh, but I, I, I had a little bit. I just my Chinese is really horrific. I forgotten most of my Japanese, my wife's from Belarus, so I do a little bit of Russian. I can say thank you in Turkish, like you know, like little little little, like baby stuff, but I love impressing people just by saying thank you, so I try to learn the language of wherever I'm going. But also I didn't realize it in answer to the question I'm fascinated with the religion as an aspect of understanding people and what's important to them and, like you know, like identity, and so for me actually knowing things about religion and culture and that's been a superpower from a futurist perspective, right Linking up to values and identity, and so it's actually been a real asset and I've done some work on the futures of religion and there are subsets of futurists that do this kind of work. So I think it's an interesting niche, but I wouldn't say it's one of my like specialty areas.

Steve: 10:35

You know it's interesting you bring that up because, uh, because the, you know, growing up Christian and I still am, uh, you know, and more so now. Uh, grew up Catholic, I went to Catholic school too, so, but, you know, studying other religions, looking at the impact of faith, you know, and I look, it's funny when I look at places, uh sorry, uh, fiction stories, like Dune or uh, foundation. Right, these are 10,000 years in the future. These are, like you know, millennia. Earth is kind of a forgotten planet, that you know.

Steve: 11:17

But the issue of faith, when you watch, like the apple show, like you know, like, whereas jesus didn't really survive, he's like different planets have different face. They've even forgotten memory, the dune, they have elements of it, of the Bedding Jesuit, like they have this Catholic connection, they have like artifacts and some of the Bible and things that they do. But, you know, it's like, what does it mean to have faith? What does it mean for a culture? When we think of futures, what does it mean to the identity and the belief systems, that and the value, like you said, the values that they then hold, that make their futures? What are the probable futures or possible futures that you know this is influenced by?

Steve: 12:03

I think it's a. Everyone talks about tech, everyone talks about economics. Very few talk about faith or values, which I think is to your credit. You know, an element that needs to be brought in, because there's so much to the history of people, of the peoples, and not just the Western civilization that dominates. So what are your? What? How do you bring when you, when you do like workshops or you work with cause it's? Obviously you can have a very overt conversation and probably easily offend people, but how do you bring those aspects into futures work when you do like workshops or exploratory work with clients?

John: 12:46

Yeah, so it it really does vary. I would say that you know, there are of course, contexts where a client might see it as not being, you know, relevant or useful. And for me I might try to couch religion or spirituality within the context of culture or or, to your point, around values, right, and I think I I've I've also gotten to a point where I might say something like if we want to understand people, then we need to understand the lenses with which they make sense of themselves and the world, and and we can't do that without making you know religion and spirituality and and everything else in between. So I think for me it's a natural part of trying to situate, kind of not just what we see but how we see it and from the perspective of doing again the suture's work that's going to have impact.

John: 13:32

I think that's hypercritical and so I think some of the messaging there, especially again, maybe it's a corporate context or maybe it's a governance context where they think of a certain issue, right, or maybe it's super technical right, like it's on the future of an energy transition or something, but like how people think about again those decisions they might make, incentive structures right, the types of behaviors and locating that and relating that was in the context of understanding, again, you know, culture, religion, spirituality I might call it different things but to really try to get that root sense of what are people doing right, like how is this affecting and what's important to them. And I think that's been a core part of the work. Even if it's a one-off workshop, right To try to bring it in in some way. If it's a longer project, of course maybe it's part of the standing work that we do or something, but really try to get it at least on the table or on the menu.

Steve: 15:03

So how is your understanding? As you said, you came into the Minnow program for the PhD in 2015. And you've been in this field for a while. What's changed? What's evolved over your career? What have you seen in the field? Because I think it's more popular than it ever has been rightly so, because of the uncertainty and the rapid change. I think it's a way for people to get a get a hold on things, but what have you seen evolve?

John: 15:39

Yeah, I would say that there's definitely been this, this emergence. So, actually, I started the PhD in Hawaii in 2009 and then it took me nine years. Actually, I started the PhD in Hawaii in 2009 and then it took me nine years. Uh, I left Hawaii in 2014 because I had professional opportunities and had a growing practice, so that's why it took me four more years to finish. Um, but I would say, like, in probably the last 10 years of really strong, like you know, out on my own different relations, like you know different types of of of professional practice, I've never seen it so widely and broadly. Just like out there, we're not at the level or degree of normalization. Right, it's not. It's not a risk management yet. Right, it's not a, you know, it's not a whatever. Like, right, it's, but like security it's not.

Steve: 16:25

Yeah. The cybersecurity, it's not that common. Yeah, I guess, yeah. The cyber security, it's not that common. Yeah, I guess, yeah, yeah.

John: 16:30

Right, but like I think we're getting, like it's becoming clear and, look, I mean the honest truth is is that there was unbelievable work that happened, you know, up until December 2019. There's phenomenal amount of work that was amazing and impactful and powerful and great case studies and examples. It was amazing and impactful and powerful and great case studies and examples. But I think nothing has been more dynamically driving foresight than COVID. Right, that was the wake up call, certainly for a lot of the organizations that I work with, like the big INGOs. Covid was the elephant in the room, that thing that was like oh, we should probably start formally thinking about the future. And if you look at you know, even quietly, what's happened new government foresight units popping up, new INGO and you see it, the proliferation of toolkits and reports and everything and like it's quite clear that we're going to look back and say that that was a watershed moment for getting the field up there. So that was one. And I would say also to your point, kind of where we started or where we were chatting in the green room was like this normalization of kind of games and design and experiential, like that's been a that's been an unbelievably like big shift.

John: 17:38

So I I was doing games for again 10 years or even like 13 years ago. We were doing a mobile augmented reality live action, role play, like you know, experiential integrated stuff. And back then it was like, well, I guess we're going to you know we'd spend more money on hot dogs and T-shirts than we would on like the open source mobile augmented reality platforms. But the point is now it's like, ok, people are open and into that, like these are projects that are getting funded and of course it depends on the and the. You know the focus, but like I'd say that the opportunity in the space to do that stuff one is still growing but two is becoming far more accepted.

John: 18:15

You look at the success of people you know, like yourself and Phil and Superflux and Jake and Stuart and others, like really the opportunity to grow that design experiential space is like it's still there but it's really taken off in a meaningful way. And of course, games I do a lot of games as well Like the game space has really exploded at the Dubai future forum. Just uh, uh, last month there was a whole special session where multiple games Lonnie Brooks, uh, was there, like it was phenomenal. Lonnie Brooks and Ahmed sorry, ahmed Best was there too. It was. It was really really cool to see all the games just kind of front and center in that space I'll cut this part out.

Steve: 18:52

So I'm I'm good friends with ahmed. I didn't. I have he was gonna be. He's gonna be on the show. We and I didn't. I know, I know, yeah, I know, I know it's. He's great guy, he's a wonderful. Uh, you know you talked about, you know dubai is a great space. It's been interesting to me that and I believe that this is a decade to democratize this type of work. The question I have is does this stay kind of a skill set or does it become a real organizational role department? And there are obviously foresight departments, but there are fewer. There's usually like the force, the futurist team of one. You know that evangelist, the one screaming, the crazy one screaming from the rooftop. Yeah, what does? What do you think the decade ahead portends for the, for the profession? Do you think it becomes more of a? This person is a futurist or has it become like design thinking? You're not having design thinking departments, but you have a design department, right, you have people that are doing product design. Right, they use these techniques. What are your thoughts on on that?

John: 20:08

Another easy question Wow, um, so yeah, no, I mean, this is great because I think you've really hit the nail on the head. Like so much of what I've seen in the last you know, like you know, 15 years and again 10 years of, like you know, really intense like professional practice that's that, fortunately, has taken me all around the world is like it's still very much about relationships and about personalities, right, like someone is a diehard, someone keeps it going. Like you said, very few formal institutions that have a really long tenure. I mean, certainly there are longstanding governance examples, there are longstanding corporate examples, but you can count those on two hands. We don't have this like diffused proliferation of longstanding, you know futures and foresight functions. And the one thing that's interesting to me is, exactly at this moment where we're starting to see those things grow, the conversation around skills and competency is starting to come back. I don't actually think and this is where, like, again, I may be in trouble, but like and we were talking a bit about this before like, not everybody needs a PhD, not everybody needs a certificate, right, but you do need if you want, I think, to meaningfully contribute to the conversation. Realize, like myself, like everyone else, we're standing on the shoulders of giants and so engaging and interacting with that, building a practice as a discipline, having again some of the theoretical, some of the applied, and being able to do that in a meaningful way, I think does contribute to work that has impact. And so we're seeing more trained practitioners get jobs, and that, for me, wasn't the case 10 years ago. Those jobs weren't there and then when those jobs were there, they were filled by people who didn't really have training or necessarily experienced. Now we're starting to see real jobs advertised. People with real training, experience get those jobs and like it's starting to kind of mature.

John: 22:04

The one thing, of course, we want to like make sure that doesn't like calcify, right. It doesn't like like, I think, this vibrancy of people coming at it from different angles, right. Like we were saying, like some people come at it from design, some people come at it econometrics, like some people come at it from story and narrative, like like that ecosystem, that ecosystem idea, like I think is super critical and healthy. And we've seen this happen, right. The emergence of the experiential design. We've seen the discipline of anticipation explode in the past 10 years. You see futures literacy really reemerge in a meaningful way.

John: 22:39

Future studies is still continued on, but, like all of these things are now like again, there's a lot of stuff bubbling, and so I would say like I'm optimistic, it's a really exciting time. Of course, at the same time, the challenge of the work are still what they've always been right how do you create real, genuine impact? How do you leverage the tech to be able to do that? The tech is changing, of course, every day, it feels like, so being able to use the tools to create really impactful, dynamic work is still I it.

Steve: 23:12

Yeah, you said there's a lot of things in there. Uh, one comes to mind is the difference between you think of it as like tools, skill set wow, job, job role. Like a function, job, function. Right, I'll take. Let's take excel. Let's take excel as a tool. Right, there are people that you could just jump right in from day one and kind of use but you can have training from it. Right, there's a skillset to really getting really good at. But then there's an application to it where it's like you're a financial analyst or you're a business uh, you know designer. Like there's different financial model, like there's all different ways that use that set. So it's like we have obviously tools, like scenarios or other types of of engaged ways to do certain types of work. Then it's like the. I think it's the gap. It's like there's this fee, the, the skill set itself, which some have taken on self-study or they formally gotten it that we have to make the leap into the different roles and it doesn't have to be just futurist. I think that's.

Steve: 24:20

The other thing is, how do we define different types of foresight roles? Because it used to be just straight out and the jobs that I see are very much entry level. For the most part, they're like they're looking for the signals researcher, the analyst at least they're there. But at the same time, you know there are more senior, experienced hires right, but that's usually that person trying to build a team. So I think as we mature and the team matures, you'll need more. You know other experienced people at the same time. But it is something that I we're gonna have to, like you said, not to calcify it. We we definitely have to at least get some kind of bounding for people to just understand it and how to, how to hire it, how to buy it right. That's the big thing. People don't even know how to hire it or how to write a job description. 100, a hundred percent.

John: 25:15

Yeah a hundred percent.

John: 25:16

I'm amazed at how many times, like even with, like you know, well-known organizations like sharing TORs, sharing RFPs, like really trying to reorganize, because, as more people pick it up, and I think you hit the nail on the head, like it's incumbent upon us to make sure that the commissioners of the work understand and are educated, because the last thing we want in this kind of massive, this Cambrian explosion of foresight, is like bad work, to just like proliferate Right, and then it's like, oh, then it's like, oh, this isn't, it's not having an impact or this isn't that. And so I think that's why, like again, this attentiveness towards, towards making sure that it's it's commissioned in the right way and it's it's, you know, always managing expectations like what can and can't this do and how can this be useful and what. How are we evaluating this? And measuring impact in different types of meaningful ways is is always critical, and I think I think you also highlighted something else Like there are lots of, and no short of, those entry level jobs.

John: 26:17

A lot of times those higher level ones are tied to like a strategy or research or a policy thing. So that would be an interesting and that'd be great to kind of monitor and measure right. When did those start to change right? When do we see the chief futurist become the role right, like a C-suite, like it's just a thing, right. And so if we see, like an SVP of future is like these types of things emerge that would be really interesting to play with, to try to like as an emerging issue, like okay, then we start to see a different type of scale emerge that could be interesting.

Steve: 26:48

There's two types of roles over the last 30 years, 40 years that come to my mind. One is the rise of the CIO and the rise of the VP or the design chief design officer. Vp of design is in the early nineties. It was just you know it. You know you just had it people and run of the mainframes. And then networking came and for those you know to give a history on tech on it. But in the early nineties, you know to give a history on tech on IT. But in the early 90s you, just like IBM was a big leader in this is you know people were hiring the CIA and it was being pushed in HBR and I'm sure all the consulting firms were pushing for this role to get it in there. But the CIO kind of started to emerge right, and in two places it was either if it was under the CFO, it was like a cost function. If it was really reporting to the CEO, it was a strategic function. Ctos didn't come until the dot-com era. That's more the kind of fusion of strategy and tech, but that function to your point. Most people had IT managers or VP. It was really getting through. Now CIO is everywhere right. Same with design. You had designers living inside engineering teams and they just kind of make it pretty. Which is the phrase one of my least favorite phrases in the world is. Then it became a design manager, a separate design group, you know, and then it emerged and then you started to have VPs of design. You still don't have chief, you have chief experience officers, chief, you know, but you. But it has emerged and it's kind of matured the same way. So I do think we're on that same path and I do think it'll happen faster than those did.

Steve: 28:26

I think to your point about COVID. We saw the same thing at McKinsey. It was people overnight saw their supply chains shatter, everything they built for perfection, just the, the, the idea. Everything was now up in the air. The uncertainty was a way of life and it's going to be for, you know, forever. I think an AI even just exacerbated it on top of that.

Steve: 28:47

So everyone is trying to navigate all this uncertainty. So who are the best navigators of uncertainty? Futurists or foresight professionals? Right, because we look at all the possible futures. So a lot of strategy is like kind of more forecasting, like kind of extrapolate out. Maybe there's some things out there they really don't deal in all the black swans. They don't deal in a lot of the too much of the what ifs right, they just don't have time and you know they're measured on different things in terms of the performance of the business. So I think one strategy, I think it'll, I think it'll probably best reside in a strategy department or some type of parallel function where it becomes a really important arm. It's kind of like the engineering has the design group, like they have the, the have the leadership to make the experience, because if your product sucks, no one will buy it. It doesn't care how great the code is, same thing. It's like if your company can't navigate or at least see when things are going to change, no amount of strategy will help you. Yeah.

Steve: 29:54

I love this discussion with so many different people, because it comes to the same type of at least some kind of common threads of it is evolving. It needs to be democratized. People realize it needs to be there. They're getting over it. There's one person that's like I'm going to take charge and I'm going to form this group and that's where you're seeing, like you said, we see the least the formation of entry level, because they're trying to build the capacity, they're trying to build the team to put out some stuff because they can't afford. Maybe they don't need the senior people yet because it's just too expensive and it just the real doing that they need Right.

John: 30:30

So yeah, yeah, yeah, well, I think so I, I you've highlighted and I know this is where we were talking about going was like let's say, it does land in a, in a strategy department, right, so a great home for quote, strategic foresight, right. But maybe it lands in HR or, like you know, svp of culture or something Right. And so then it becomes like how do we lead with the transformative stuff? And I know we're going to kind of dive into this but, like, I think, like in different organizations, it can look quite different. Right, it can, it can have different homes relative to where it might fit, and maybe it is again still very relational and personality driven until it finds a footing in a way that makes sense for that, that organizational culture or context.

Steve: 31:13

Well, and that's, this is a great kind of segue into transformative culture or context. Well, and that's, this is a great kind of segue into transformative. So, um, I think it's a good primer, because people always hear about, for strategic foresight, futures. But you have strategic foresight and then you have also transformative foresight. So let's start with, let's explain and do a little compare and contrast.

John: 31:42

Let's do that first to lay the basis for people in this conversation? Yeah, so I think, in the strategic foresight sense really rooted in the work that we've seen built up over the past 30 to 40 some odd years, where it's how do we have you know forward-looking intelligence that has an organizational output or outcome, right, like so it's a strategy, a plan, a policy that is, you know, insights driven, that is, again, is forward-looking, that is rooted in, of course, a range of data. I think to your earlier point, like maybe there is a real sense of we want to forecast and see what you know X or Y year is going to be, and have a sense of maybe where the you know the puck is moving, so to speak, so we know where to skate. And I think that's, you know, the strategic foresight that we've seen, you know talked about and thought about and really you know become, I would say, a majority of the work that's not only performed but certainly, you know, wanted and commissioned. And I think certainly for me, like where I'm picking up the transformative work, and there's a great paper by Andrew Curry who talks about, even within scenarios, kind of the kind of the dualistic thread of the field so you can think of, like you know, herman Kahn and the work that was really, you know, like creating scenarios as a term, and like this recently with the work of Sohail Inayatullah, and you know a lot of narrative foresight work and futures literacy is saying, all right, hold on, let's look out, sure, but first let's look in, let's try to understand and make sense of the self plural selves that we're using and bringing to these processes.

John: 33:35

I think, for me, the one major difference and and and maybe this is a bit harsh I think the major assumption of strategic foresight is that we're just brains sitting in vats, that we're somehow not embodied beings that have feelings and and and fears and hopes, and so I think what I've found, and why I'm trying to use this distinction a little bit more in my work, and why I see others picking it up, is it gives us a meaningful way to talk about those fuzzy, perceptual aspects of doing this work that maybe aren't always as easy to work into. You know, a proper strategic foresight project, so, which is to say like, how do we integrate images of the future, which shape how people think and feel about the future, in meaningful ways? How do we deal with hopes and fears and narratives. How do we bring in the kind of mindset and the idea that, again, we aren't always seeing the future in one way, because maybe we might fear the future as a parent, we might feel different as a professional? So this idea of we need more complexity and depth and more ability to kind of touch on really the dynamism of who we are as beings in the world, and that's where the transformative has really been powerful.

John: 34:47

I do think it's rooted in lots of interesting, different types of traditions, so I'm trying to locate it also in the work of people like Bruno Latour, who talks about matters of fact, which would be on the strategic side, versus matters of concern on the transformative foresight side. I think, to pick up what Sohail has talked about in metaphors, the strategic side is the hero's journey, right, we want to win the future. We want to get the idea and be successful and achieve X or Y. The future. We want to get the idea and be successful and achieve X or Y, whereas transformative is not the hero's journey but the caravan.

John: 35:21

We're all in this together, right, how can we learn? The real product is the process, and so I think what I'm finding is that distinction is quite helpful, mostly because and I know we touched on this a little bit is there is an interesting overlap space where the transformative can be a super charge for the strategic and the strategic can make the transformative meaningful in an organizational way that maybe it wouldn't otherwise be. So I actually think it's that in-between space, that ecosystem of both that's really a unique opportunity and again starting to see some organizations and even even governments pick it up.

Steve: 35:58

How how do they like in terms of real kind of rubber hits the road, like how did they bring that into an organization? Is it like you said, gaming? Is it workshops? Is it? Is it like an on? Because it's. I. I feel like there's two versions of there's the foresight project we want to do like future of x right, we just want to have a futures come in. Do some workshops be hopefully just the report doesn't go in the drawer forever. But then there's the ongoing, like you know, active. You know there's lots of other activities. It's, you know, more of a function. Um, how does transformative work in that way? Because, cause you're saying it's actually not by itself, it's really connecting to strategic as well.

John: 36:44

Yeah, yeah, absolutely so. I the two major examples I would say, like I had a chance last year to be a part of the or one of the uh advisors for UNICEF's youth foreoresight Team and they run a Youth Futures Fellowship. It's amazing work. And they publish, they contribute to the Future of Children Report, like they do really awesome, meaningful work. At the Dubai Future Forum.

John: 37:07

They just had a major installation where they had personas and all the fellows from all around the world came and what they've been able to do in a really intentional way is integrate this transformative perspective into the process, the practice and the products that they create at large. Is that they're really intentional and really trying to locate and root how they talk and think about the future, with an attentiveness towards towards culture, uh, towards, you know, power, towards understanding, narrative and having methods and tools that also support that type of reflexivity. I think I think reflexivity is really key because, again, it's not just this looking out, looking out, looking out but how do we, how do we then look in relative to what we're seeing, and and vice versa. And so I I use this metaphor a lot Like, uh, there's a great saying by Michelle Foucault, who who, of course was this. You know theoretician and talked a lot about power and his work and where there are walls, and I love that saying because when you put a window into a wall, of course, everyone assumes you got cut off.

Steve: 38:22

Can you do the quote?

John: 38:23

again I got cut off.

Steve: 38:24

I went choppy, so, yeah, what's the quote that says Custer?

John: 38:30

Yeah, so I love this, I love this quote by Michel Soucault, the French theoretician, who, talking about his own work and again he was always talking and thinking about power said that he said he's not a prophet, so again, he's not predicting, just like us, but he said that his job was to make windows where there are walls. And I love that because it speaks to me, to both parts. The strategic part is, yeah, you put a window into a wall, you can look out, but a window adds light into whatever room or space, so it changes the interior dynamics. So this idea of actually a window is a real two-way thing, of course, because it can ambient heat or other things. So this whole idea of you change the inside space through that practice of having that outward view and I think that's this kind of in-between space that I'm really keen on through different practices, through different processes, through having products that speak to that, you can instill and create that reflexivity.

John: 39:31

Now, look, I'm not saying that strategic foresight doesn't have that, but I think you know, and again, not be totally unsayer but that strategic foresight doesn't have that, but I think you know, and not, and again, not be totally unfair, but if strategic foresight alone could have changed the world. The world would probably be a different place. So so we we need to find ways to kind of enhance and strengthen that and and ultimately find ways to say look, you know, there are certain types of foresight that maybe we don't want to do right. Maybe maybe certain types of methods or tools have, you know, their sell by date is gone, right, like. So how do we find ways to always enhance what we're doing and to use again everything we can to help to create the changes that we want to see?

Steve: 40:06

Yeah, the it brings to mind there's a chart of like all of the fiction or the work of speculative fiction or you know, science fiction, and it has like the utopian, dystopian and the plausible, implausible. It was like very like one or two in the bottom of like the utopian, plausible type of thing, like most stuff is, is dystopian. Yeah, you know, we're optimistic as humanity and I think your earlier point about this like we like dystopia but we believe in it's an interesting. It's gonna come back to me. I'll have to cut this part out. I just had it in my head. Oh damn, man can't believe I forgot it. It was. It was a really good point too.

Steve: 41:13

I wanna I should have just pushed that out, because it was how we apply. It was something about the application of foresight Like you know you talked about. You know strategic had been the. You know everything would be different now, but that'll come back um cloud to just leave our way back, all right, so let me go back. So do you have like contexts or challenges that you feel like like, how do you choose the foresight approach? Like where, where, when you get into it, like what's, like when you find is most appropriate?

John: 42:01

Yeah. So I, you know, I definitely go in now with a lot of framing around this kind of strategic and transformative. So even earlier in a, in maybe even an initial touch point with a client, I might, I might kind of, like you know, lead in with that a little bit to kind of give them a sense of how I want to kind of use some of this language. And for a lot of people maybe it's it's new. So you're always kind of, like you know, probing and testing and seeing, and you're always responding, of course, to a, to a call um, or it's a or it's an introduction, um, I, I do have my favorites right. So, like I definitely have my things that are, you know, kind of go-tos. But I'm, you know, relative I said relatively agnostic with methods. Like I try to spice it up, I try to keep it fresh, I'm always trying to hybrid. I mean that's led to new methodological things, it's certainly led to no shortage of kind of dead ends. But I would say that you know, scenarios continue to be a mainstay, even though I try to challenge or undermine that very traditional type of, you know, scenario construct. So you know, certainly, like the scenario archetypes, the alternative futures, whether it's Hawaii or Houston, I think, get used. I'm a huge fan, of course, of causal layered analysis. The futures triangle has become probably like a go-to and I always open engagements, whether it's a one-day workshop or a project with a Pollock game. I love this idea that people have to kind of situate yeah, yeah, so the, the, the Pollock game was um, was created by, uh, you know, peter Hayward. Uh, well, peter Hayward and Stuart Candy have an article about it. Uh, joe Boros is one of the creators as well, so it kind of comes out of the kind of Swinburne, uh future school, if you will. And uh, the whole work is based. Work is based on Fred Pollack's work.

John: 43:57

So the idea of the image of the future, and of course, the book of the same name dives into the power that these images have and how they push and pull people. And basically what happened and Peter kind of tells the story is that the game kind of emerged and said, instead of talking about it, let's play it. And so there's these two axes. So kind of running vertically is the idea of optimism versus pessimism. So again, are you happy or excited about the future? And then, on the other end, right, are you the opposite, right, worried, and then there's kind of cutting across that to make this matrix is the idea of agency. Do you think the future can be shaped and changed or is there a destiny? The future is determined or decided, and what you very quickly create, of course, are four different quadrants, that are four generic perspectives on the future.

John: 44:47

Now there's versions of the game.

John: 44:49

It can be run in different ways. I usually run it like this, where first people are thrown into one of the four. You don't have a choice and you have to defend that, and then we kind of vote to see who had the best arguments. So it's very rational. It's very like, you know, competitive.

John: 45:03

It's a game. It's kind of gets laughs and then, and then I completely turn it and say, okay, now where do you stand as an individual, and not just one of the four, but the extremities, right, are you dead center with a foot? You know, in two, are you at the other end of the like? Sometimes you do it spatially in a room, you can do it on a mural board, and so I try to create that kind of shift. So, yes, we're looking out, yes, we're kind of competitive. Then all of a sudden, wow, we're deeply personal and for some people it's quite disarming to have to share. I mean, I've had people where everyone in the room is in one quadrant, like in one corner, and one person is standing there saying I kind of more that transformative, that perceptual, like wait. Are we thinking and feeling about the future and how does that shape what we think is possible, what we, what we see and how we make sense of the future?

Steve: 46:07

Do you have an example where you kind of took these different approaches? Could you talk about how you start Like that really led to something like powerful, like powerful outcomes, like? Can you kind of like anything you can show like example you could share?

John: 46:29

like. So people could kind of synthesize something direct. Yeah, so the one example I use is I was really fortunate to spend almost a year as the Global Futures and Foresight coordinator for the International Federation, red Cross, red Crescent, right so world's largest humanitarian organization somewhere between 11 and 14 million volunteers globally Nobody really knows, I guess they can't count that many 190 countries and I was there at the start of their 10-year strategy process and my job was to really kind of kickstart using Foresight for that and they had a strong innovation team. They had amazing people there as well and we did this with different groups. And what was really interesting is we did this kind of internally with kind of the policy team and you had kind of mixed, but you had more bias towards the kind of you know the optimism you had a lot of you know perspective, towards the kind of you know the optimism you had a lot of you know perspective on the agency side and we saw that strongly, really strongly, with volunteers Super fascinating.

John: 47:24

I won't name names, but some of the leadership were really entrenched into the destiny and the pessimism which is the quadrant of doom. This is like the sky is falling. Nothing can change, everything is horrible and what that Everything is horrible Like, and what that showed us was, as an organization we had a gap. We had this unbelievable space to say, well, okay, what is it? And what is it about different countries maybe being located in different spaces?

John: 47:49

So that simple tool, using that almost like as a metric, as a guide to like understand what was the internal perspective or framing of the future, it really did bring a unique and interesting space to think about the types of you know, priorities, objectives that ultimately made it into the strategy, and so it definitely informed the conversations that were had about the types of engagements that we had. So we said, okay, this is interesting, now let's kind of do this here. And and so it really did open a open, a unique space into how the organization was thinking about the future and even some of the things that were unsaid, because any other methods would have been about, oh, this emerging tech or this emerging crisis. This was about how people think and feel. Right, this is about what they actually believe, and so that space again really created a unique space to actually kind of surface some of those other maybe hidden anticipatory assumptions, other things that really were interesting to kind of bring out in a, in a foresight process, in a very strategic foresight process.

Steve: 48:51

So you've worked in well over 40, like 50 countries. So what do you see Like, cause you these methods and the application of it? You've done a lot of work, not in the traditional, like I would call it, western civilization, for you know futurists, kind of dealing with the U? S or the, or you know Europe You've worked in 45, over 50 countries, or Europe, but you've worked in 45, over 50 countries. What are the differences you've observed in how societies approach futures? Thinking Like what's their, because we talked about, say, in the green room too, like values, we talked about religion, like those things obviously influence thinking and perspectives and just lived experiences. So how do what have you observed, like how they approach it, or differences?

John: 49:43

Yeah, another, another easy question.

Steve: 49:47

It's what I do, man. It's what I do.

John: 49:50

It's uh, you know, it's like, you know, like, yeah, like a few things that like are are more generalizable, but I would say like, probably the one thing that I'm most like, I'm always interested in, but always trying to find that space and again, I'm always, I'm the perpetual outsider, right. So I I think that's another thing to kind of like I'm always, I'm always holding that kind of space and, of course, a lot of times brought in as a strategic foresight expert. But I try to subvert that by always saying at the outset, like I'm not the expert on the future of X, you know, you are the people in the room, it's your lived reality, it's your context, organization, yada, yada, whatever. So anyway, it's a kind of like roundabout way of saying like, for me, the most interesting moments and what's been interesting about working again primarily outside of Euro-American context is finding spaces where play, art, music, like more of those types of culturally rooted traditions can be infused or have a space in the process so exceedingly powerful and I would say like, creates a different type of modality, like, like people. People might come to a strategic foresight workshop, right, and John has flown to Bangladesh or Mongolia and now we're doing it like it can be performative, right, they're there in their expert role, as whatever, but they might not be there in that self as someone who lives in this community and you know, dah, dah, dah, dah dah.

John: 51:19

So I think those other types of like instruments or tools or whatever you want to call them, open up a space where people don't just have to be that performative self. They can be that other, that other self, and bring that forward, and I think I've seen that happen and that's been super powerful. And, again, narrative and story can do that. It doesn't have to be art and music, it can be. Certainly the experiential and design stuff is there Games. I love using those.

John: 51:45

So, like these other tools I would say are more impactful and I've seen them be maybe even more widely embraced in some of those contexts. Now, with that said, I've done games with the European Commission, even in the US recently with a large government organization, so I do think that they are growing more normalized. But I would say that one major difference is that maybe some of these other spaces have a leg up with regards to using quote non-traditional method, which I don't like that term, but like I think, like if we say that the quote, traditional narrative textual scenarios are the, are the you know, still the quote gold standard of strategic foresight. I would say the one thing is, maybe in a lot of these contexts there's an openness to the transformative piece. You know, relative to some, some cultural and contextual dynamics.

Steve: 52:38

Well, it's interesting you bring up you know, especially in the government side, as an example, like, let's talk about anticipatory governance. You know, you think about the concept of that and policymaking, you know. Do you have any thoughts on how that work has been influenced, like how that works for with foresight? Can you explain the concept for people first? Maybe that would help.

John: 53:06

Yeah, well, I'd say first off, like it seems like an oxymoron right, anticipatory and governance Right, exactly which is why I brought it up, because it's just, it's such a weird, weird term in and of itself, right yeah?

John: 53:20

Yeah, well, it says. It says a lot about our current moment if we think anticipatory governance is an oxymoron. But I, I mean, I hear this a lot and I think, given that it's not common usage, I will say that a lot of this is kind of rooted in the earlier work that emerged in the 70s and the 80s, even some in the late 60s, around anticipatory democracy, which was how do we infuse more forward looking perspectives in these processes? So, like there was Hawaii 2000, which happened in the late 60s, there was even it was Iowa 2000, which happened in the same time, and it was Iowa 2000, which happened in the same time and really key people were part of this right back in the day of the kind of like you know, all of the big names in the American kind of futures crowd or even globally, fundamentally has a forward-looking component.

John: 54:15

That is fostering learning, that is driving policy as ensuring that people's livelihoods are fundamentally being and again, not future-proofed but, in as best and as prudent as a way of possible, ensure that we're paying attention to the signs and the signals of these emerging futures. And I think, most importantly, the part that I'm really interested in is how do we ensure that there is a space for people to participate in governance in different types of ways, and so I think it is about that collective intelligence kind of leveraging that. How do we and again like having worked in participatory futures now for a few years, no-transcript. And so I think it is about trying to make sure that this kind of action learning mindset and the work of Jose Ramos is great in this regard to think about, like how do we make sure that governments are learning and really are action learning organizations so that they are able to kind of better meet the needs not only of the president, of course, but to try to be more anticipatory with what those future needs can and could possibly be?

Steve: 55:48

do you think it needs to be infused? Cause I I was, I was about to jump into, like you kind of jumped ahead. It was like how can large bureaucratic systems become more future ready? Right, do you need an office of strategic foresight? Do you need a? You know I'm working on a project here in the United States, uh, that there's a group trying to put together the office of strategic force so they're trying to make it a cabinet position and that is compelling. It's almost like the national director of intelligence here in the United States. They kind of pulls together all the different you know groups. So if you had foresight leadership and different of the agencies and you brought something to kind of at least coalesce future vision, get aligned with overall, you know kind of an active center point. You know centralization they love that in government. It's like, but but bringing coordination to that like, have you seen any systems that worked? Have have you seen any organizations doing it? Like, what are your thoughts on that? Like how they can do this?

John: 56:55

Yeah, so I'm currently working with a government in Southeast Asia I at this point I won't name the name because there's still like we're still emerging, the work is still coming out, but like we are looking at case studies and examples for where this has worked really well and there are some really great examples. So Singapore has a long standing integrated foresight function that has really developed into a robust ecosystem. Finland is another really great example. And when I say ecosystem, that means you not just have one unit in one place, but like multiple functions that coordinate, that can talk to each other, that can even share informally, that can talk to each other, that can even share informally learnings. People know each other. You also have people in educational spaces. You have academic, you have private sector, you have, you know, civil sector as well. So like this idea of, again, a learning ecosystem that may be able to contribute to governance in a meaningful way. And again, I think sometimes that can be quite formal, right, Like plan policy strategy, like you said, like a national intelligence function, like a high level thing.

John: 58:01

I'm really actually excited about a lot of this conversation. That, again, you know back to our earlier conversations about what's changed. That conversation wasn't there 15 years ago, right. So like now it's come back. I mean, the US had the Office of Net Assessment was killed in the 90s, right. Like this actual unit that was kind of serving, right. It was legislative, like it was meant to be, like this kind of like looking ahead, like analysis, emerging issue, like that sort of a space, and that got killed, right. So the whole idea of bringing it and having a high level that people can look to, I think is really exciting.

John: 58:35

I'm also interested and this is the other part of anticipatory governance we haven't talked on, and this is also where you know, let's be honest, this is like touching the third rail. We need new governance systems. We don't really have good functioning governance systems. So the one thing that's unique about Hawaii and the Hawaii Futures Program Jim Dater has taught for decades, until, of course, his retirement, a graduate seminar on governance design how do we design governance systems that actually integrate futures and foresight? And of course he has a range of different challenges that governance systems face, but looking at different systems from different traditions and contexts, even looking historically, and then the capstone project is actually designing a governance system that deals with these challenges and certain variables. I had a chance later in my graduate studies to co-teach that class with him, and we even worked with architecture students as well.

John: 59:32

So like it's a really interesting piece and one of my priorities for this year is to kind of bring back governance design. Now, on the one hand, that's treason because I'm saying we need to tear up, like in the US, let's tear up the constitution and design a new governance system, right? So like it is this weird space of saying, okay, what does it mean to actually build governance from the ground up again and not just beholden to these things? I'm not saying everything has to go away necessarily, right, there's a lot of richness there. So like, well, what does it actually mean to creatively and critically think about this? And, of course, you know the Institute for the Future has the GovDesign lab and there's an amazing toolkit that emerged years ago.

Steve: 1:00:10

But like to really be serious about. Jake dunnigan is doing. That's exactly right. So, yeah, yeah, he learned he got it honestly right. So, from the data program, right, because, honestly, the phd was a political science phd if I remember right.

Steve: 1:00:25

It's not exactly a few strategic foresight. I actually think there's going to be a couple things. One, to address your constitution thing you don't have to teach doing anticipatory governance doesn't mean like like burning down the con. To me it's just let's just actually adhere to the constitution. Can we, when we start, can we look? It's a, it's an a.

Steve: 1:00:48

It's an amazing document that's lasted almost, you know, 250 years. There's a reason it's it's got a lot. It's the execution of it and the bureaucracy. That, to me, is where the fruits of it lie. To actually put the things that we have in the Constitution and to live by that, I think, would be a way. And then how to effectively connect to the citizen to change that or to make that they feel that they're part of that change and also reduce the bureaucracy. It won't be interesting to see the next administration. They actually do cut anything, but I'm I'm not holding my hopes. I mean, it's a lot. There's gonna be a lot of people that want things to stay the way they are, regardless of how you feel politically or I don't care, but it's just it.

Steve: 1:01:32

There's a lot of people that have a lot invested in the, in the status quo Right, and, yeah, I think that's a big I think that's the biggest barrier in that, because if you get somebody who's a futures thinking and futures forward, they just want it to stay the way it is. They don't want to change. But until change hits them in the face so hard that they have no choice, right COVID?

John: 1:02:01

right, so 100%, yeah, yeah. So. So here's what blew my mind is, like, um, one of the things that comes up in in data's classes and and I know Jake's talked about this and like this, like this is what got me like reinvigorated and and to the governance design, certainly for this year is so the U? S is quite unique. Right, the presidentialist system, right, the three branches, like the whole structuring, right, this Madisonian compromise that went into, like the constitutional structure, it's quite unique. And what's interesting is if you look at every single government that has adopted that presidentialist system, right, so, again, the US doesn't have a prime minister. Power sharing is different, right, parties aren't actually part of the constitution. Long story short, every single government that has adopted the US presidentialist system every single one and we're talking about mostly, like Central and South American countries every single one eventually went into a military dictatorship. Every single one, single one eventually went into a military dictatorship, every single one. So, like there is. So, to your point is like, is there something about the structure? And I agree with you, like it, actually, if there are many things in there that we were quote, abided by right, or if other you know means and mechanisms weren't, you know, mucking it up like, could look and feel quite differently. But you know, always these things have to be put in the context.

John: 1:03:10

And one of Dator's points and why governance is lied to me is interesting is like, you know, things are designed as you know, with certain, you know ontologies or worldviews and you know, assumed in mind, right. So you know the type of worldview and the type of thinking that went into that document, which is unbelievable, still has insane shortcomings, clearly, but like was an unbelievable moment in human history. It's still rooted in certain worldviews, right, and so, like what does it mean if we play with those worldviews, if we shift, if we open up and, you know, enhance that or, you know, start to tinker. And you know, clearly, the idea of a living document, you know, from a governance perspective is unbelievable. But that little factoid always stuck with me like this you know, clearly, the idea of a living document, you know, from a governance perspective is unbelievable.

John: 1:03:54

But I that that little factoid always stuck with me like this, this you know this military dictatorship kind of like looming out there in the horizon, at least, at least for those again who have tried to copy. But yeah, it's, it's, I think, a big thing that we're going to see hopefully come back to the table. You know, certainly globally we have the need for governance in different ways. But even the conversation itself I think that's the important bit is like how do we meaningfully have a conversation? And you're right, jake and others have been on this for a while and I think we need more discussion on it.

Steve: 1:04:24

You know I was thinking about Because if it looks like it's directly impacting them and they might be resistant to that, you know, and there's people that can play those roles and personas, if you do role playing. But at the same time I think about the effectiveness of war gaming, right, and the booze allen or other companies do with government agencies to kind of prepare them. I do wonder if the framing of it because if it's that way, so that's the first when we get to that part, because I wanted to ask you about other gaming examples because we had talked about that as well so let's, yeah, let's. From other people Like so do you think war game, you think the, the messaging of it could be different in the, in the? I just put it so that they don't think that they're it's going to take their job but it's going to help them. Like you know, prepare right, prepare for change versus make is yeah yeah, no, I I think so.

John: 1:05:32

Like I think you know, one of the challenges, like and I think you hit the nail on the head is, like you know, we we have a lot of systems that that still very much have that kind of horizon, one managerial bureaucrat type of like control, and, let's be honest, that's how systems remain stable right now. That pres, that presumes that the operating environment itself is stable and yet, like we see that we live that disjuncture. So why I love the games and certainly I was recently part of a proper war game, like it was this NATO thing, and I got a chance to just be a participant, like kind of fly on the wall, play a little bit of a role, and I didn't design the game in any way, but that was the first time I'd seen like a proper war game. No-transcript, a finite game is like like Monopoly, like there is a winner right, there's a scoring system, it's quite clear. We start and we stop. The infinite game is the game that we play to keep the game going, and I think that's that mentality of governance, that's that perspective on futures and foresight. You know, so many people have, you know, written and talked about this kind of framing. And I picked this, I picked up Kars, through the work of Zia Sardar and this now have integrated this as kind of a lens to make sense of what it is that we're really trying to do. And I think this also goes back to this strategic, transformative piece. I think, at the end of the day, the strategic foresight is like we're gonna play this finite game, right, we're gonna.

John: 1:07:18

You know, some people talk about future-proofing or winning the future, that language sometimes you know, I got to grab the EpiPen like I have this allergic reaction, like I'm like we, we, we can, we think, just when we think we've won right, it's like dun, dun, dun, like no, the future comes back and bites us, like, so this idea of the infinite game is, hey, the next surprise is just around the corner. But hey, strap in, let's go Right. Like this idea of like the get, the idea is to keep the game going, and I think that's the part that, like, really, at the end of the day, does give me some semblance of hope is like, what role do we play? Or how can we then constructively keep the future plural, and I think that's a space that we need more ways to find the work that can get us there and and that messaging is is critical as well.

John: 1:08:07

So I was kind of a roundabout way of coming back to games, but that's that's usually my landing, for the games is like, how do we ensure that we always have that futures plural perspective and use games as a means to be able to kind of bring that forward? So to your earlier point about the war games so the uncertainty can be dealt with in a meaningful way, because a lot of times if the uncertainty can't be dealt with, then it's just thrown aside and it's like, oh well, we'll just we'll do this or that, but like wait, wait, wait. What about the like no, no, no, we can't, we can't process, we can't process. So like we're going to go here, we're going to go there, and so I think the game space is is a really powerful space to be able to do that and I, as a modality of kind of using foresight, you mentioned the Dubai future forum earlier.

Steve: 1:08:54

I want to maybe bring this into it. You mentioned our mutual friend, Ahmed Best was in that was, and Lonnie was. They were teaching games. They do a lot of work at USC teaching storytelling, teaching filmmakers, really kind of getting them into design futures. And obviously he's had to do a lot of. He does a lot of Afrofutures work too, but it was like the disciplines of futures, thinking as a filmmaker, as a creator, Do you see any application in that way that could go toward government? Or maybe what, what, what did you see there? And then we can kind of jump from that.

John: 1:09:34

Yeah, so actually like connecting with Lonnie and Ahmed at the Dubai Future Forum was amazing. We were actually part of the same games showcase where myself and Jose Ramos, who were part of the team that developed the Our Futures game, which is the participatory futures game, were there and Lonnie and Ahmed were doing the Afro Rhythms game and there were lots of other game space and so what was amazing to see in here was the sheer diversity and range of how play was was being used and, you know, lonnie and Ahmed brought this unbelievable energy to the space. And we're talking about how the game is not just about getting from, you know, idea A to idea B, but actually creating the opportunity for people to meaningfully change. And, to your point, like, how do we have new stories that are rooted in different types of perspectives and traditions and cultures and how do we call attention to often again, those you know, the real kind of contradictions, the tensions, the power imbalances, the inequalities that, of course, certainly abound in our present moment, to ensure that we don't just simply keep replicating and reciprocating those into the future ad nauseum. And I think that's what's so powerful about their work and also where games are a space to create and hold those tensions.

John: 1:10:52

I actually find I can bring content in and play with ideas just by calling it a game in a way that I might not otherwise be able to do, because some idea gets kicked aside. So I think I kind of use it again as that kind of space to hold things or maybe clients it's a bit delicate where they're not kind of sure how to talk about it or we don't even know what it is. So we have to kind of literally game it out. And I think that was great to hear that message come from Lani and Ahmed about the real power and meaningful aspect of games and the narrative and story component to tell their own stories and then finding ways of using play as a means to, to to understand what the story could be. So those are bringing in that novel aspect as well, um, by a lot of randomness. So like using the randomness aspect of gaming as a, as a core element. Uh, again, I think has been really powerful.

Steve: 1:11:48

That's interesting Cause I it makes you think like aphorisms, right, would be great in certain parts of the world where it wouldn't work in others. Right, and any type of gaming, or you could reframe it maybe, or take the. There's the game mechanics themselves and there's the, uh, the content or the theme of the game itself, right, so could you? You know one thing I have to ask him at um, and what I we're going to do an interview soon is ways that aphorisms could be used in other parts, like the. The mechanics of what they've done is great. It's like you have your base.

Steve: 1:12:22

Can aphorisms be used in an asian culture? Right? Could you change the framing and some of the things to create as rhythms, right? You know like you can do right? That's fascinating because it's all about that context. You know, and you which kind of? You know teaching people like, especially in this pre-governance. You're doing a lot of teaching work and I want to talk about education and you've worked with UNESCO as a chair. You know what do you think we need to educate people Like? How do we educate them Like and with, with all the tools at our feet, at our let me say this, all the tools, you know in front of us. What do you think we need, like, what changes do you think we need to educate people?

John: 1:13:13

yeah, this is another big fish. I mean, I think like, at the end of the day, like I'm I'm really impressed with unesco bringing forward futures literacy as as a key educational competency, like not having it be this kind of, like you know, unique or this boutique type of you know, specialty skill, but like saying actually every, everyone, and even if you look at UNICEF's work on youth foresight, like you know, when we talk about the future of children, and certainly now and even in the into the next year, where they're going to focus on education, like seeing this as a core competency that that everyone, that everyone should be able to tap into. Because you know, and again it goes back to actually this idea of like, okay, we of course are taught history, so that we hope to not to repeat it. Well, that hasn't really panned out so well. So, clearly, we need the ability to, as you highlighted earlier, navigate uncertainty, confront the imagined futures that shape again how people think and feel, and also and I like Riel's work, riel Miller's work on futures literacy talking about how it's understanding the role that the imagined future has in the here and now, because certainly for children and for youth, like what's possible? I mean, you know, when I was a kid, I never even imagined that this profession was possible. I didn't even know like this was a thing. And yet, to kind of come back to Dubai, there are, you know, every school children. You know all the school children go on a trip to the Museum of the Future. And so now they're introduced to this idea and walk through this museum of futures artifacts. So that to me, is a grand social experiment.

John: 1:14:56

And UNESCO is saying look, let's bring future literacy to the table and try to have and find our way towards a forward looking type of perspective, again that we can never know with 100% certainty what the future will be. We never have the power to make it exactly how we want it to be, because the world is a complex and dynamic place. And yet we can move towards better futures if we intentionally and critically and creatively, you know, use everything we have to try to imagine again a better future. And I truly do believe that UNESCO is attempting that, which is a Herculean feat. I mean, we're talking about trying to make the world a better place, but again, if this is what it starts to look like and this is nothing short of a generational scale shift, right, I mean, this is trying to ensure that, just like we saw, you know, different types of literacy emerge, you know, over the course of human history. This is a new type of literacy.

John: 1:15:54

I like that metaphor, like the idea of literacy. Some people say, okay, it's too da-da-da this, it's too that. But like, even Wendy Schultz talks about features, fluency, right, it's like the idea that people can learn this, right, it's not rocket science. And like being able to have these competencies, these capabilities, like this capability-based approach, like, you know, tools, the methods, the practice, the process, like integrating this, the mindset. All of that, I think, is is. I'm really hopeful and UNESCO is really trying to see this as something that it can lead and champion on, and it is again supporting the global chairs network and ensuring that we have the access and the resources and really the support to be able to try to further this work, again in different ways and different places, and it not always is the same everywhere, but like, wherever we can, to make sure this is at least on the menu, right, and gets on the table.

Steve: 1:16:45

You mentioned the word you know Wendy talks about. Uh, yeah, I use the same. I talk about futures fluency. But if you use both words literacy and fluency, literacy means you understand it. Fluency means you can communicate it and do it right. It's, it's there. They both need to be there. There needs to be a literacy level right, and then there's a fluency level, just like language. It is a language, futures is a language.

Steve: 1:17:11

So, you know, we, we covered a lot of ground today and I one thing I kind of want to, as we, you know, get into my fate. One of my favorite topics is, uh, ethics. You know, as this changes, and also I don't really like the word inclusive because I think it's just been misused as a term. But you know, how do we make sure that you know, with the ethics of using whoever's in charge kind of controls the future right, it's like whoever's running that thing, that's their future work, that they do Like, how do we work to make sure that it is inclusive, it doesn't perpetuate the status quo? I don't like to use any kind of like bingo buzzwords. I think there's a real challenge for us as futurists to do this. I think it's one of the, the underlying buzz of the of the whole thing.

John: 1:18:12

It's like we have to make sure that there's real, effective change and that everybody's voice is heard Right the rootedness, within the context that I feel, of future studies and organizations like the World Future Studies Federation, that kind of emerged during this Cold War era and said look like another world is possible. Right, there really is another world possible and I recently, like Anab Jain, one of the co-founders of Superflux right, talks about. You know, other worlds are possible. So, like, I think for me, the ethical is as a, as a futurist is someone who, like I, like, willfully identifies with, with that contentious moniker right, like a term is thrown around, like we were saying earlier on LinkedIn, but like to to say, like it's really our job, it's really our our calling, it's really like the ethos of what it means to be a futurist is to highlight that other worlds are possible and to do that in a way that calls attention to you know, the quote, the disowned, the disempowered, the disenfranchised, those potentialities and possibilities that are not just about, you know, overthrowing the current, just because that's that's what you know, the, the futurist does, it's the change and disruption. All of that is there. But, like, how do we find ways? And this is again why I love the work of Sohail and Nirvana and others in this space of like, okay, we have the dominant, we have the disowned. What's the integrated? Look like? What does it mean to say that we have, you know, this new type of structure that brings the best of both? And how do we find our way towards those types of futures? And then again, like, how do we keep the conversation going so that you know the space of doing futures work?

John: 1:20:07

And I also, again with John, like Zia Sardar talked about, we don't just need imagination. And I also, again with John, like Zia Sardar talked about, we don't just need imagination, to your point, we need ethical imagination. And he talks about, then, the virtues of ethical imagination as being humility, modesty and accountability. And I like that combination because, okay, accountable to whom? Like? Well, we're ultimately accountable as future ancestors. Like you know, we need to find our way to, you know, like this classical adage of, like you know, leave only footprints. And we're not doing that, just like, as happened previously, the humility piece comes to realizing, like we're not going to know everything. There's a lot of learning by doing along the way.

John: 1:20:49

And, of course, you know, the modesty piece is fascinating, because then, what is it about the types of work that we need to do and don't need to do to, I think, the heart of your question. That is really critical within this field. And I think for me that's always come back to the idea that in any project, in any process, how do I find a space to call into question those assumptions, right, to find a way to create provocations that can leverage multiple and different perspectives and that that can be part of the process. And I found that to be the work that, again, not just feeds the stomach but really feeds the soul and, at the end of the day, that's the work that you want to try to find your way to, um, and it's, it's a constant challenge, it's it always feels like it's requiring that.

John: 1:21:37

That being in that, that that middle space where where people like you enough and think you do a good enough job to hire you, but also you have to make them uncomfortably or comfortably uncomfortable enough to like, they're willing to like, wait, what's going on here? Right, so it's. It's always that kind of like, that fuzzy, weird space that you know as a designer, like you're, you're right, you're kind of always towing those lines and like, and sometimes you hit that wall and sometimes you the the trees clear and you open up in a field and like let's go play, so like you have to. It's. It's that constant type of wayfinding that I think is critical, that that I think is at the heart of the ethics of doing this work. Um, that I think is so, is so critical and central.

Steve: 1:22:21

Yeah, you're right, I mean, I it's. It's funny. On one hand you'll hear you know what data there's different. I'm paraphrasing. But Sahil's, like, you know, if you're not doing, if you're not thinking wildly enough, you're not really doing your job.

Steve: 1:22:35

As a futurist, like you know, futures aren't. You know, and I kind of pride myself in, you know, being a bit provocative, but I also am a realist, Like I understand, like you know, people, what people will. There's a limit to what people can consume or take at certain. You know, sometimes you have to give it to them in small doses, right. But as a designer it's a great, he brought that up it's like if I'm paid to do a design project, I'm going to. If they're bidding it out, they have a better idea of what they want, right. So there's, there's a level of scope in that thing.

Steve: 1:23:13

If you're doing a futures engagement, say, you're doing, uh, something for their product and trying to figure out the product landscape five, ten years, to kind of look at. You know, diabetes care always my go-to, because it's like how much technology's changed with continuous glucose monitoring, or like what's it going to be in 10 years? Like the evolution of that, like. But if you go so far afield. It's almost like I can't design something too far because then they will accept it and the project will be a waste of my time. So I have to manage expectations or I have to understand really not just managing but understanding their limits to creativity. I say late, not everyone is creative, not everyone is super. Like the end, the limits and there's different, I think, gradients of that. I think the same applies to futures work. It's like you know I experienced that a lot at McKinsey is that you know that firm is paid a lot by people to tell them what to do tomorrow or the next quarter, tomorrow or the next quarter, the appetite for three years, five years, 10 years, 20 years, no matter your rate of change, most don't really care, or they don't, or they might put it in marketing, speak for vision or other things, but the reality of action, it's, it's.

Steve: 1:24:24

The challenge now is finding those people that get it. But at the same time, I think shows like this and the you know you teaching like it's it's about getting the right people in those organizations to understand it so that they can buy it Right, so that they're the ones that can communicate to their people to buy the same thing with government, right To those people that get it, can communicate it to, you know, the director of that bureau or the head of the minister of that bureau that they have to do this, um, and they are the ones that usually usually kind of take their responsibility. You know, take the heat. But I think it's, I think it's important to understand that as a futurist, like what your client would really take as acceptable to live for, like a you know outcome, with the understanding that some of it you may not like. And are you okay with that? Right, yeah?

John: 1:25:16

Yeah, yeah. And I think, for me, what goes along with this, and I think, like you know, like I feel like I've been fortunate enough to come to this and clearly, like you're also a living testament to this as well, like you know, we're also spreading the futures bug, right? Like, how do we get more people infected with futures? Bad metaphor, bad metaphor, I get it, but like too soon. But like, like this idea of like we want, we want to create more people who are like you know, like whether this is high, high, low, low, or whether this is part of their formal work, or whether it's a thing they do at night and then bring to the office the next day or bring their right, like those people who are like I'm going to do this no matter what, because this is part of who I am and this is so important to to to everything.

John: 1:25:56

So I think that's the, that's the, the other part that I really dig about. This is like when somebody clicks and they get it and you realize that like they've, they've just how they see, everything has just been completely shifted. Like there's a beauty in that moment and that happened to me and like seeing that happen in others is like is is what it's all about. I think that goes along with that, like other world or possible, this provocation space, like a bit of that. I think that's, that's the critical part that is so central to actually having this great meeting.

Steve: 1:26:29

Where I think it can be really successful for those who are listening is that if you find the levers with people, you'll find that they've been wanting to try and communicate this, but they didn't know how, and now there's a. This is an avenue and a pathway to actually synthesize something that can be consumed by people. The non-futurists, or at least the go toward futurist literacy. The show here yeah.

Steve: 1:27:09

I like the, especially the insights of careers. You know is this is none. This is not a common journey, it's no one typical journey, you know, like going to law school, become a lawyer, become partner. What's the one thing you know kind of taking this journey, you know, and you found this what's the one thing you've learned in your career you wish you knew, like you would, when you started well, uh, that's a really I guess.

John: 1:27:38

I guess that's a really great question. I think the one thing that, as I look back, is that I really needed to find that balance in myself of the extra from the introvert, like I. I think maybe a lot of people have the impression, by either doing this work or, you know, like, uh, trying to really connect, that like the extrovert part is is natural and, and for me it is in many ways because I, I really get so much energy from connecting with people and love that, like, love, that those moments of real connectivity and and opening up and sharing and learning about others, and like, and, on the other hand, like, the need to kind of rec who I work with and, like you know, in formal educational spaces, or even people who are like part of project teams coming to me and like, like how and talking about that balance. So I would say like, like, having the ability to understand what that balance looked like. And it is, yeah, about mental health, but it is also about how we practice and what we do.

John: 1:28:49

Um, because the one thing I didn't realize when I started and this is also about my own path, which has had a lot more precarity and maybe a lot more like moving around than others might have, is having that network kind of mindset, like having genuine connections and being able to work across different you know organizations or teams or units and like being open to that as really pay dividends. But that also requires lots of recharging, which is why I live in a small Turkish town and don't do any work in this country at all, just like I'm here, as like hey, we live in us, we live by the sea and that's our life. Because I need that. I need that Like. I need that space to kind of like recharge and kind of hold that I need that like I need that space to kind of like recharge and kind of hold that I need that keep versus the other part Right, and I think that's something that I didn't realize.

John: 1:29:38

I didn't realize how much of a like, a weight or a cost there would be to doing this work and so like coming to understand that and then coming to find a balance with that has been been a really interesting part. That would have been nice to maybe know in advance a little bit more, but the, the, the finding my way to it, it's also been, it's been a process and it always is.

Steve: 1:30:01

I can completely relate to that. You know, when you think about the legacy we leave right, this kind of looking back, you know we're both young, you know this field is going to be, it's going to have an amazing decade ahead of it and even more so, right, it's always you know the what, whatever the singularity, right, or what is the what is the next 20 years of life? There's always going to be a need for futures in some way.

John: 1:30:29

But when you're looking back, you know you work with some great organizations what impact do you hope that the work you do will have, and hope it has, on the world? Yeah, I, I think now I've really landed on one thing that, like, is absolutely critical, that I want to feel like, look, if I've done this, you know for another 15 years or more that, like I can say I've contributed towards, and that is really keeping the futures plural. Um, I think, when I, when I look at a lot of the certainly the negative trends, right, the risks, the, the flashing neon signs that we all see and feel, it can feel a lot of times like like we had discussed earlier, like this topic futures are winning, right, and we're headed off a cliff, like I think a lot of people feel this way from any number of things that seem to be converging. So, if we can hold this idea that there are a range of futures that are possible and that we have that as a mindset this, this alternative futures mindset and I've contributed to that in some meaningful way You're working with X and Y or a corporation, organization, government, you name it and I'll have felt like I did something that was, you know, like meaningful in this life and, I think, also too right as a, as a parent, like feeling like I've I've contributed to a world where my, my, my, my children have more possible futures, right, and at the end of the day, that's that's.

John: 1:32:01

That's, of course, what we want, but like be able to do that professionally and to link that, that personal space into it is again it feels like it's and I think you know you've expressed as well like it's a calling right. You feel like, yes, there's a vocation and yes, you can make this as a living, but like it's something more and I think that's the part that like. I feel like again standing on the shoulders with others in the field of different generations. It's such a profound responsibility and, like it, it it weighs heavy at times, but also like, wow, what a, what a dynamic way to go through life and hopefully to to leave it in a better place.

Steve: 1:32:39

Agree, it's a great place to uh wrap things up. We've been having a great conversation. So, john, thanks for being on. It's been a wonderful conversation.

John: 1:32:49

Couldn't wait to have you on again, it's been amazing man, and I don't think there's anything else to say but go, Dodgers.

Steve: 1:32:56

Yeah, go Dodgers. Yes, for those that are listening on the audio, we both have a. I have my Brooklyn Dodgers hat and John has his Los Angeles Dodgers. Like you say, to the end it's a. It's a Dodgers love house, so, all right, great, thank you.

Narrator: 1:33:13

Thanks. Thanks for listening to the Think Forward podcast. You can find us on all the major podcast platforms and at wwwthinkforwardshowcom, as well as on YouTube under Think Forward Show. See you next time.